Key facts
- Twenty-five protesters charged for demonstrating against Israeli President Isaac Herzog's visit to Sydney will face a joint trial.
- Lawyers successfully argued for a joint hearing, citing common legal and factual issues.
- The trial is scheduled to begin on July 19, 2027, with a pre-trial hearing on March 8, 2027.
- Allegations include unlawful police response and a challenge to a major event declaration used during the visit.
- The police response to the protest is under investigation by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission.
Twenty-five individuals charged in connection with a protest against the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Sydney will face a joint trial in July 2027. The decision for a joint hearing was made after lawyers for the protesters successfully argued that common legal and factual issues were present across the cases.
Acting deputy registrar Soly Najm scheduled a week-long pre-trial hearing for March 8, 2027, and the six-week trial to commence on July 19, 2027. Felicity Graham, one of the nine lawyers representing the protesters, indicated that Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon is expected to be the first witness. Assistant Police Commissioner Paul Dunstan, along with Greens MPs Sue Higginson and Jenny Leong, may also be called, with consideration given to other ministers and members of parliament.
Thirty people were initially charged following the protest at Sydney's town hall in February. Charges against one individual have since been withdrawn. The police response during the protest is currently under investigation by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission due to allegations of brutality.
Police had opposed the joint trial application, with prosecutor Sgt Adrian Walsh stating it would create significant issues with witnesses. Graham contended that the cases shared common legal and factual grounds, including allegations that police engaged in an unlawful response to an authorized protest. This argument stems from a law passed after the Bondi terror attack, which restricted protest marches in certain areas and was later found unconstitutional by the court of appeal. The protesters had submitted a formal notice of intention to hold a public assembly, which Graham argued meant the protest was authorized and police actions prevented them from exercising their rights.
Further challenges are anticipated regarding the validity of the police's use of a major event declaration, typically reserved for large sporting or cultural events, which expanded police powers during Herzog's visit. Graham also indicated potential shared arguments concerning the admissibility of evidence across the 25 protesters, who face charges including assault on police, resisting arrest, and failure to comply with move-on directions.